The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

On March 15, five executives of JPMorgan Chase & Co. appeared before a Senate investigative subcommittee to explain $6.2 billion in losses due to risky trading. Subsequent coverage featured headlines like “No drama at JPMorgan hearing – just an executive throwing her staff under the bus.”

It was likewise observed that the hearings swung an “uncomfortable spotlight” on bank Chief Jamie Dimon even though he didn’t appear before the subcommittee. One executive who did appear was “berated” for nearly an hour because he purportedly underestimated salient risks to investors and regulators.

Gosh, it doesn’t sound like any fun at all.

In fact, congressional investigations – including fact-finding by staffers that may or may not lead to a public hearing before elected officials who may or may not be driven by self-interested political considerations – provide at least as perilous a venue for corporate executives as any trial in open court (short of a televised criminal trial).

The comparison to litigation is more than metaphoric. It’s no accident that lawyers like John Merrigan, who prepare and guide clients through the arduous process, apply the language of litigation practice in describing how they approach Congressional investigations.

“You must first assess the client’s overall exposure and you must have a consistent ‘theory of the case’ at every juncture,” says Merrigan, co-chair of the Federal Law and Policy practice group at DLA Piper. “It’s all about due diligence during the investigation as well as the enforcement period after the hearing,” he adds. “What is the government trying to accomplish, and how does the company’s involvement in the investigation further that objective?”

Also as in litigation, the collaboration between client and counsel is essential to a positive outcome. No different than with any investigation or trial, it’s not just in the hands of the lawyer. The behavior of the defendants is decisive throughout and, in turn, that behavior is usually based on how well they understand the process itself. The bad news is that most business leaders who receive a formal letter of inquiry from Congress have no idea what’s in store, how to respond, or what’s at stake.

The good news is that – for first-time witnesses questioned about a defense contract no less than the CEOs of major banks who appear before Congress with excruciating regularity – the process is not so formidable as to be inexplicable. And it’s the job of your lawyer to play Virgil shepherding Dante through the spiraling circles of Beltway hell.

In that context, here’s an introductory practicum with a few specific tips culled from leading Congressional investigations experts. As Merrigan advises, committee objectives vary from instance to instance. Some may involve nothing worse than simple oversight. Other legislators have specific agendas; Sen. Carl Levin, for example, is determined to eradicate abusive tax shelters. That said, we trust the following best practices are sturdy enough guideposts no matter what kind of investigatory landscape you and your company enter on.

Check your outrage at the door. You may instinctively resent a Congressional investigation as a political hatchet job in disguise or at best a photo op for the committee members. You may be wondering why the whole matter isn’t handled by the government relations people. In fact, you should take it with all the same deadly seriousness as if it were, again, a court of law. Assume that a fair-minded hearing will occur if only in order to better ensure that your demeanor won’t appear contentious or uncooperative.

It’s their ballpark. At the same time, understand how the investigation and especially the hearing itself differ from litigation. In some cases, committees do not recognize privilege, as John Merrigan points out. “There are no rules of procedure that assure you will have the time to make your case, and the committee members hold all the cards,” adds Ted Hester, senior partner at King & Spalding. No appeals process is available to overturn the committee’s report because a committee member happened to speak out of turn.

Again, the purpose is to manage your own expectations with respect to the ordeal that lies ahead and, by so doing, condition how you will look and what you will say. Whatever vexatious twists and turns the proceedings ensue, you must appear unceasingly receptive and eager to be helpful.

Facts, facts, and more facts. Immerse yourself in all the relevant specifics of the case, says Coleen Middleton, Of Counsel at Wilson Elser, and anticipate the toughest related questions. Know all the relevant documents that your lawyer has produced to the committee, Hester cautions; know them backward and forward. The more closely you hew to the facts, the less room you allow for ideologically motivated flourishes from the bench.

Smart ideologues will respect the truth if only because they won’t want to jeopardize or discredit their own agendas by peremptorily dismissing expert opinion or irrefutable facts. “They don’t want to appear as if they’re on a witch hunt,” adds Middleton.

Know your audience. Assume a fair-minded hearing but prepare for as many possible political agendas as there are congressmen sitting on the committee. As Merrigan advises, one strategy to assess the committee’s ideological proclivities is by looking at the majority-minority party mix, and the dynamics that may result (in one direction or another). There’s no foolproof barometer, however. When it seems that agendas will indeed drive or at least color the hearing, a number of best practices are palliative.

As Hester advises, coordinate with your communications and government relations people at every juncture; likewise coordinate with in-house and outside lawyers handling related litigation and investigations by other government agencies, not just the ones handling the investigation. Monitor all media, both the news and social media, for clues as to what individual members are thinking and intending. Information is still power, even when you’re on the vulnerable end of a Congressional investigation.

Your lawyers handling the investigation will confirm ahead of time what the scope of the hearing is. Doing so may not keep all the congressmen on the reservation, but it is a useful precautionary measure to neutralize narrow political motives as much as possible.

Strategically engage committee members. There are often important junctures during the hearing when it’s advisable to proactively address the committee members. For example, it may be shrewd to simply ask how you’re doing: Was that information helpful, Congressman? Have I answered your question, Congressman? In other instances, it may serve your interests to directly – but very politely – confront a committee member who’s off on some ideological tangent or playing fast and loose with documented fact. At such moments, counsel will advise if it is wise to respectfully disagree with your interrogator. The operative word is “respectfully.”

Lay the groundwork ahead of time. Committee members typically have only five minutes allotted to strut their stuff during the hearing. They won’t relinquish control of those precious moments. Hester says the congressional staffers are therefore key: If you can effectively make your case to them in-camera, it naturally affects how the committee handles it in public.

Of course not everyone who appears before Congress has the facts on their side. If the actual facts are bad enough, allows Hester, there are a thousand-and-one ways to implicate yourself during a Congressional hearing. At the reputational level, the Fifth Amendment is a fatal choice for you and your company while the news cameras are running.